tvc184

Just more NT click bait............

I found an article on it. It says that a decision is looming and many people suspect that no charges will be filed even by the US Justice Dept. From only the evidence that I saw on video, that would be the proper response. I am sure there is other evidence that has not been made public but the burden is on the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officers acted improperly and I didn't see that from the video. The article notes that several laws have been proposed in LA due to this incident. I was surprised to find that they are now recommending at least 400 classroom hours for a basic police license. That was the TX requirement over 30 years ago. LIT locally teaches about 700 classroom hours for a basic license. That law proposal also looks to have at least 20 hours annually for updates. Again, TX has had that in place for decades with mandatory updates on new laws every legislative session and many more hours of additional training for more advanced police licenses similar to college degrees. For college you have associate, bachelor, master and doctorate degrees. Police have basic, intermediate, advanced and master licenses. A master police license with 1,200 hours of training takes 20 years to attain. It can be sooner with more schooling but it is not easy to obtain. Apparently LA has no such requirements of annual training or not nearly as extensive. (I have over 3,000 hours of classroom training and probably over 5,000 total training) That is a good thing for LA and it looks like most police departments, at least the chiefs and some unions, are backing up the requirements. Welcome LA to the 1980's..... [Hidden Content]

I cannot find any article on it.

I've got it. You have no clue as to your claims being true (zero chance of conviction because he threw a punch) but personal experience let you assume the facts. That was all that I was getting it in the first place. I wanted to know if you actually had any knowledge of what happened and this guy was unfairly targeted or you were merely putting out an opinion. It is not a matter of being worked up. I thought you actually knew what happened the way you were commenting and I wanted to know what happened.

Not only policy but state law.

First off, it will not likely go in front of a judge but a jury. Some juries aren't very sympathetic to a bunch of drunks and in fact may be prejudiced against such action. Guilt isn't debated in living rooms but by jurors sitting alone in a room and they come from the general public, not a debating forum. I have seen such rationale in citations that I have written such as for loud music. I guess some might have the theory that a jury member has teenage kids and might therefore have sympathy for not hammering a kid for such action. I testified in front of such a jury and saw a kid get hit with almost $1,000 in fines and costs from a jury. You say that it is not about stomping a defenseless person but that seems exactly what it is about. I asked you what information that you had as to the "single blow" statement that you made. Your only response was a witness statement. It again seems that you are basing your "single judge" result on that single hit. My question to you again is, was there a single hit by the student in question and did that supposed single hit have anything to do with the results? If so he might be in a bunch of trouble and might need to find your judge who would never convict him on your witnesses credible testimony that you read somewhere. If it is true that he only hit the victim one time and it had nothing to do with the outcome, he should have never been charged and if so, hopefully will not be indicted. I am just always curious on internet debates where claims are made because someone read what another person said about what someone else said. Do you actually know for a fact that the student charged in this case hit the victim one time and it was not in any way involved in the outcome? I would love to hear such facts if anyone has them. I suspect it may be nothing more than wishful thinking. My only thinking is that whoever is responsible be held accountable and if this student isn't one of them, he has all charges dropped immediately. Oh yeah, that "one" hit is still likely an assault which carries up to a year in jail.

I am not done disputing anything since I know absolutely nothing about the incident. Having been involved in thousands of investigations however, I am surprised that the investigators released the information on what witnesses said. Where can I read the statement released by the police?

You say that you have a problem with head kicking and stomping a defenseless person. That is what makes the aggravated assault under Texas law. For all of the people involved in this incident, the DA office and sheriffs office appears to have singled out 4 people as being the one involved in this act of assaulting a person who was defenseless. It was not everyone who threw a punch or who was involved in the overall melee. I have no clue of any of it other than one person was seriously injured. The logical question would be to ask if the student in question was one of the persons that took part and if there is video or if there are credible witnesses that say he took part in your description of kicking a man when he was down. You claim to have knowledge that all he did was "threw a punch". If that is correct then you are likely also correct in that he will not be convicted of the assault.... and should be. If there are credible witnesses or if there is video of this student taking part in kicking and stomping a man who was defenseless, he will likely be convicted of the assault.... and should be. My question for you would be, how do you know he only threw a punch?

Nope, the judge appears to have completely ignored the Education Code which is the prevailing law.

I believe that Van Jones is correct or nearly so. It is a typical way of taking a fact and skewing it to make it look like something different. I read a CNN article on the pipeline and those numbers. It used the same figures but then went on to explain them. The 35 permanent jobs is to run the pipeline itself. That is, the actual flowing of the oil through the pipeline. This will be like at the point origination and pump stations along the way. No, the pipeline itself will not create 42,000 new jobs. That would be a worker approximately every 175 feet of an underground pipe line. So Van Jones and others are correct. It does not take a different worker every 175 feet of an underground pipeline to keep it flowing. Duhhh..... Oh yeah, the CNN article does mention the 42,000 jobs. Jobs will be created but they will not be standing on the pipeline. They will be in production, transportation, services provided, etc. So yes, the pipeline will only create 35 new jobs for people staring at the pipeline to make sure it's not leaking and to man pump stations along the way. Yes that will be an additional 42,000 jobs created by the same pipeline by the product that runs through it. Jones and others choose to ignore the 42,000 jobs and focus on the actual "pipeline" jobs and hope (successfully it appears) that some people will be too stupid to believe that million barrels of oil will create 35 jobs.

The law actually says that the school "must prohibit" extracurricular activity in such a case. The way I read the law, it does not seem to even give an option. The article says that a restraining order has been "filed". It does not mention any relief by a judge hearing the case. Hopefully the school district attorney can convince the judge to simply follow the law.

Yes, it seems like an easy win.

.... or even implied it. It is yet another ludicrous straw man argument.

Let's see, Bryant says we need to focus on personal responsibility and Sharpe says that he simply hasn't read enough. Hmmm.........

Absolutely correct. If I was hiring someone to represent me, I would not hire someone that says something that I don't like.

I was going to say that. O'Reilly tries to give other opinions a chance. Carlson is Hannity in another form. I think the left is going from the frying pan to the fire.

Well, that's one..........

Maybe yes, maybe no. Most police schools that I have gone to say the people are wannabes until they pull the trigger. We had a case of a funny wannabe gang with a funny name a few years ago and some of the kids at school laughed at them. Then they shot up a house when angry at someone, got the wrong house and killed an innocent woman with children. I guess they were no longer wannabes. Just sayin'........

Freedom of the speech does not mean that the police have to release details of ongoing investigations to the public. If the press or anyone else finds out about it, it is generally okay to publish it with I believe some laws on national security being protected even under the First Amendment. The public might be shocked to know what the police know that is not public.

A 17 year old is an adult in Texas. A juvenile 14-16 can be certified in court to stand trial as an adult and if so, the name can be release. There is no provision in the law to release a name by the seriousness of the crime. I am not sure what to do about the "lose your rights" comment. There are no rights coming into play here on the release of a name. It is a matter of statutory law, not "rights".

Maybe. Then BG can tell me what he says.

BG needs to watch Rachel Maddow on MSNBCand gets some new accusations. This one didn't pan out................

Because generally you need a victim to step forward and say "I have been wronged and I want to file charges". Apparently that does not exist in this case. Let's say your brother took $5 out of your wallet without asking. It is clearly theft and crime or moral turpitude that could end many future or current employment. If you get it square with him and say that you do not wish to pursue any criminal charges, should the police step in and force you to testify against your brother? On a personal belief I think that charges need to be filed if there is a big crime but that is between the parties involved. Criminal charges are not automatic because someone thinks that you can prove a crime.

It is not relevant in relation to United's actions. It makes some of us feel better that a person that is probably a dirtbag got what he deserved. It is like seeing a couple of guys assault someone and it is clear that the assault was a crime... but finding out that the guy that was beaten was a child molester and ruined the lives of several children. It is better to see a vile person suffer than a truly nice person. Maybe you could reduce it to one word... karma. Legally? No bearing. Feeling? Good riddance.